{
"authors": [
"Denis McDonough"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "TIA",
"programs": [
"Technology and International Affairs"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"South Asia",
"Afghanistan",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
Congress has fallen behind on meeting oversight obligation, which is to assess the fitness of officials who would represent the United States overseas in diplomatic or military capacities.
Source: Foreign Affairs
When the 116th Congress—including a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives—is sworn into office in a few weeks, there will be no shortage of pressing issues demanding the attention of legislators. These include perhaps the most solemn question facing any government: when and how to deploy the awesome power of the United States armed forces.
Few matters are as complex or as consequential. And Congress should not be shy. The Constitution grants competing powers in the realm of foreign affairs to Congress and the president, with the expectation—even the demand—of aggressive oversight. Having served at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, I understand that many in the White House will see this congressional role as a nuisance. But they would be well advised to welcome it, because a full partnership with Congress on national security matters will improve both the policies and their execution, while also beginning to restore the American people’s trust in Washington.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has sorely lacked any such oversight in its first two years. Two recent news stories highlight the need for congressional investigations into matters affecting Americans overseas. One tells us that accountability for the deadly ambush in 2017 of U.S. troops in Niger is still a matter of dispute. And the other reports that the Army National Guard—apparently prompted by an article in The New York Times—is conducting its own investigation into whether a unit deployed to Afghanistan was appropriately trained and outfitted after its request for specific equipment had gone unmet.
Congress has fallen behind on meeting even its most basic oversight obligation, which is to assess the fitness of officials who would represent the United States overseas in diplomatic or military capacities. According to The Washington Post and the Partnership for
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Insisting on Zelensky’s resignation is not just a personal vendetta, but a clear signal that the Kremlin would like to send to all its neighbors: even if you manage to put up some resistance, you will ultimately pay the price—including on a personal level.
Vladislav Gorin
For Putin, upgrading Russia’s nuclear forces was a secondary goal. The main aim was to gain an advantage over the West, including by strengthening the nuclear threat on all fronts. That made growth in missile arsenals and a new arms race inevitable.
Maxim Starchak
For a real example of political forces engaged in the militarization of society, the Russian leadership might consider looking closer to home.
James D.J. Brown
The risk posed by Lukashenko today looks very different to how it did in 2022. The threat of the Belarusian army entering the war appears increasingly illusory, while Ukraine’s ability to attack any point in Belarus with drones gives Kyiv confidence.
Artyom Shraibman
Instead of a guaranteed ally, the Kremlin now perceives Armenia as yet another hybrid battlefield where it is fighting the West.
Mikayel Zolyan